Today while reading the New York Times political section online two of the main articles were about funding ad campaigns. It seems odd to me that this, according to a well known newspaper, is the most important thing going on in American politics currently. Or perhaps it is not important according to the newspaper but instead what the readers are most interested in reading about which is a sad commentary on the population. Both this articles talked about the campaigns for about a paragraph but the main point as well as the title in both was who paid for the campaign and how much it cost them. Where are money is being spent is important but I feel like there must be something more interesting going on in the world. Especially with our economy in its current state I understand the need of the general public to feel they know where money is going and who is backing it, however, shouldn’t it be more important to know why it is going to those places and why certain people are backing it?
Earlier this week the house approved legislation to provide over $7 billion in medical treatments to residents of New York City who suffer from long term effects caused by fumes, dust, and smoke at ground zero AFTER 9/11. The bill has yet to go to senate so its final outcome is still unclear.
Some Facts About Health Care In America:
- The US is the only industrialized country without universal health insurance.
- About 45 million Americans have no insurance
- 18 thousand people die every year because they are uninsured
- Half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills
- The US spends approximately $6,700 per person per year on health care which is more than any other country
- Most other countries are also significantly healthier than the US
So why would a country with an already unhealthy population offer to spend over $7 billion on health care for something that happened nine years ago with only potential lasting effects? The bill is named after a New York detective who worked at ground zero for three weeks after the attack and then died in 2006. It is still under debate if effects of being a first responder at ground zero or other medical problems caused his death. It somehow seems appropriate that this bill was named after him, as response to the bill is much like response to his death. Yes, it is nice that the government is trying to help people with medical expenses, however, it would be significantly more helpful to but those billion of dollars elsewhere. The could perhaps work to improve or infant mortality rates (which is a surprising 6.22 on average but gets up to over 15 in some cities), or give health care to people who live under the poverty line and cannot afford it on their own.
In recent elections new voting machines were used in New York to replace the older, more complicated, less reliable machines. But are the new machines actually an improvement? The old machines were described by Lynn Brenner for the New York Times as follows,
“On its face, you read the candidates’ names, in columns. Each column was headed by the political party’s name. Next to each candidate’s name was a box and small lever. When you pulled the lever, there was a clicking sound, and an X appeared in the box next to the candidate’s name. If you had mistakenly pulled the wrong lever, or had second thoughts, you pulled it back. The X disappeared, and you could begin again. When you were satisfied with your selection you cast your vote by pulling the giant handle again. The X’s disappeared (ensuring its secrecy) and the curtain behind you opened.”
These machines were known to break fairly often but the biggest problem with them is there is no paper record kept so there is no way to tell if a vote is miscounting (sound familiar?). So paper ballots invaded New York city in the past election. They are set up like the SAT, fill in the correct bubble, and don’t make any marks anywhere else on the page, then feed it into a machine that hopefully reads it correctly. As anyone who has taken the SAT can tell you, it is not an easy format to use as there are too many chances to fill in the wrong bubble not to mention who knows what actually happens once it is fed into a computer. Many voters reported having trouble understanding how to use and process these new ballots which can be partially accounted for by being new but may also reflect problems with creating user friendly voting systems. When looking online I could not find even one positive report of the new machines. For a state to spend 70$ million on something shouldn’t they expect a higher success rate? These new ballots will be used in all upcoming elections as well. The reviews may get better with time and practice however will it be worth the 70$ million? I’d say probably not. There must be an easier way to create a ballot that allows any person to pick between the available candidates and be assured that their vote will be processed and counted correctly and efficiently.
